Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor my friend Bob Burke of Forestville, California, who passed away suddenly on June 10, 2010, at his home. Bob was both a true conservationist as a champion of the local environment of Sonoma County's Russian River Area and a true humanitarian as the creator of Bob Burke's Kids, which offers support and outings to children with serious health problems.

Born in 1947, Bob remained in his hometown of Forestville where his parents had started a successful business, Burke's Canoe Trips, a resort on the Russian River. He and his sister Linda later became co- owners and co-operators of the resort, a popular fixture for tourists and locals in the community.

The Burkes understood the key role of the Russian River not only for the recreation business but also for the health of the whole ecosystem. They worked especially closely with Russian Riverkeeper on fishing and flow issues.

Bob was best known for his community volunteering and charitable work, especially Bob Burke's Kids, an organization he established in 1974 after meeting a young girl with cancer who lamented her lack of playmates and opportunities for fun. Bob knew he could do something to make life better for children with serious illnesses and for their families.

Bob Burke's Kids grew from an initial Russian River fishing trip for a small group to a year-round program of activities and outings from barbecues and outdoor games to bowling nights and Halloween parties serving hundreds of families. The organization thrived as much on Bob's love as on the money it raised from a supportive community and local organizations.

Bob also personally knew the families and frequently visited the children when they were in the hospital. ``He gave so much love,'' his sister Linda says. ``He was the best brother anyone could ever have.''

Don McEnhill, Executive Director for Russian Riverkeeper says of him: ``Bob Burke always had a funny story or a joke to tell to cheer me up after a contentious hearing or meeting, but it was the kids who faced cancer or other ailments that he always saved his best cheer for and devoted his life to. Bob spent his entire life on the Russian River and clearly understood the recreational value of the Russian River to families who could not afford to go on vacation. Bob always supported our efforts to keep the River clean and healthy so it was available as the community pool for the less fortunate. His passing has left a hole in our community and the Russian River, and we will all miss him.''

Madam Speaker, I have attended some of Bob Burke's Kids events and seen the warmth and passion that animated the charitable fundraisers as much as the family outings. Losing Bob has indeed left a hole in our community, one that we can fill by remembering Bob's legacy and carrying on his work.

Madam Speaker, General Petraeus was in Washington this week to testify before the House and Senate Armed Services Committee. And while his intent was to endorse the July 2011 Afghanistan redeployment date set by the Commander in Chief, it was not the kind of clear, unambiguous statement that inspires very much confidence.

According to an editorial in today's Washington Post, the General describes next July as ``the point at which a process begins to transition security tasks to Afghan forces at a rate to be determined by conditions at the time.'' With all due respect, Madam Speaker, could there be any more qualifiers and escape hatches in that sentence?

The American people, who have 1,000 fewer fellow citizens and 278 billion fewer dollars than they did when this war began, aren't looking for the beginning of a process. They're looking for an end to this, an end to this miserable war.

Shouldn't we be at the end or at least in the middle of the process of transitioning security tasks to Afghanistan forces? Shouldn't the beginning of the process have come at some point over the last 8\1/2\ years that we've been fighting this war?

My concern, Madam Speaker, is that statements like this one are laying the predicate for an extension of President Obama's deadline, which is exactly the wrong lesson and the wrong approach. The problem is that, if you're locked into a certain mindset, it will never seem like the right moment to remove our troops from Afghanistan, because the mission as currently defined will never be complete and conditions on the ground will forever remain bad. But the reason for that is the underlying policy of a military invasion and occupation that is fatally flawed in the first place.

So, in a twisted, paradoxical way, Madam Speaker, the more we fail, the more we try to succeed with the same misguided approach, and then we just fail some more. That's how you end up with perpetual war. If we had adopted smart security principles and invested in a humanitarian rather than a military approach, we'd be a lot closer to our goals of a peaceful, stable, and secure Afghanistan.

For my part, Madam Speaker--and I am not alone in this belief--the July 2011 date is not nearly ambitious enough. That's yet one more year in which Americans will be asked to sacrifice blood and treasure for a failed counterterrorism strategy that is doing nothing to advance our national security objectives. I believe General Petraeus is moving in the wrong direction and being cautious where he should be bold. It's time to accelerate the timetable, not push it back. It's time, Madam Speaker, to bring our troops home.

Madam Speaker, the National Security Strategy released by the White House late last month has plenty to recommend. This administration, on paper and in its rhetoric and proclamations, clearly has a broader view, beyond the use of military force, of how to keep Americans safe.

The strategy puts a premium on diplomacy and multilateral cooperation as key tools of advancing our security interests. It discusses clean energy and a reduced dependence on foreign oil. It recognizes the threat, within a national security context, of global climate change. It expresses a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and pledges support for fledgling democracies. It includes, under the rubric of national security, human rights, global health, and development aid. Madam Speaker, it even emphasizes the important national security implications of investing in education and human capital right here at home.

Frankly, it sounds a lot like the smart security platform that I have been advocating for the last several years. I'm glad the folks at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue are getting there, also.

And yet, Madam Speaker, I can't reconcile all of those promising ideas with the ongoing prosecution of two wars, which are bankrupting our country morally and fiscally, without reducing terrorism threats or contributing to our national security.

The situation on the ground in Afghanistan remains very tenuous. While Americans, other NATO forces, and civilians continue to shed blood, insurgents and militants continue to thrive. As we prepare to move in on the Taliban's home base of Kandahar, all evidence indicates that we weren't successful at the more modest task of driving them out of Marja this very winter. Besides, according to General McChrystal, the Kandahar offensive isn't even ready to start on time.

At the same moment, we have an unreliable partner in President Karzai, a partner who has now dismissed two of his top aides who had the best working relationship with the United States. And General Petraeus is on Capitol Hill this week to tell the Armed Services Committees that the last 15 to 18 months have been about installing the ``inputs'' in Afghanistan, and that now, finally, we are ready to reap some ``outputs.''

Well, with all due respect, Madam Speaker, and respect to the General, we are all pleased that he is fine after briefly passing out in the Senate hearing room earlier this week, but in all due respect, I think the American people feel as though they have been providing inputs for more than 8\1/2\ years now. It's particularly difficult to accept this explanation when we've seen

$275 billion fly out of the Federal Treasury to pay for inputs in Afghanistan. It's long past time when we can expect to see results, or outputs.

But, tragically, there will be no meaningful outputs until we make a U-turn and reverse the strategy 180 degrees. The outputs will come when, and only when, our Afghanistan policy actually adheres to the core principles offered in the administration's National Security Strategy.

So my urgent plea to the White House is to embrace its own advice. If they are serious about a new approach to defending and protecting America, let's not wait until July 2011. Bring our troops home now.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1389) recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, especially on Father's Day.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on H. Res. 1389 into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1389, to honor and celebrate Father's Day this Sunday and to recognize the involvement of our Nation's fathers in their children's lives. This resolution recognizes the special bond between father and child by celebrating the significant and positive impacts a present, supportive, and involved father has on their child and the entire family.

Every year on the third Sunday in June, families across the country take time out to celebrate the dad in the family. New fathers and experienced fathers alike are honored for the hard work and deep love it takes to be a supportive father. Whether it be through a home-cooked meal, a card, or even a simple phone call, we stop once a year to thank fathers for everything they do in our lives.

Unfortunately, 25 million children in America today are living apart from their biological fathers. This means that one out of every three children grow up without their biological father present in their lives.

Fathers play a significant and influential role in their child's development. When supportive fathers are involved in their children's lives, their children are more likely to enjoy learning, earn better grades, and participate in extracurricular activities. We celebrate the fathers who are positive role models for their children.

By commemorating the hard work and dedication of fathers on Father's Day, we encourage responsible fatherhood and happy, successful, and stronger families and communities.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I personally have the great privilege to have raised two sons, Ed Critchett and Michael Woolsey, and I have a son-in-law, Mark Pauline, who are the most wonderful fathers on this earth. I am so proud of them, and I just thought I'd take this moment right now to be able to express that.

Their children, my grandchildren, Teddy and Julia, Jake-Eddie, Carlo and Luca are great kids, but they are all the better because they have such great dads.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 1389, honoring and celebrating Father's Day and recognizing the involvement of our Nation's fathers in their children's lives.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

(Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to congratulate Congressman McIntyre as the author of this piece of legislation.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1414) congratulating Urban Prep Charter Academy for Young Men--Englewood Campus, the Nation's first all-male charter high school, for achieving a 100 percent college acceptance rate for all 107 members of its first graduating class of 2010, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous materials on H. Res. 1414 into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1414, which honors and congratulates Urban Prep Charter Academy for Young Men in Englewood, Illinois and all 107 members of its first graduating class for achieving a 100 percent college acceptance rate.

Students in America often face extraordinary challenges to completing high school. In our Nation's 50 largest cities, only 53 percent of students are graduating from high school on time. In the Chicago Public School District in particular, African American males are dropping out at a rate of over 50 percent, and only one in 40 of those who finish high school are graduating from college.

The students at the Englewood campus of the Urban Prep Charter Academy for Young Men have bucked these national and local trends, Mr. Speaker. Their very first graduating class achieved a 100 percent college acceptance rate and will enroll in more than 80 different colleges and universities this fall. The graduates of Urban Prep displayed remarkable academic achievement and community engagement and received nearly $4 million in college scholarships and grants.

When nationally only 28 percent of African American male high school graduates are enrolling in college, the 100 percent acceptance rate at Urban Prep-Englewood is a remarkable accomplishment for these students, their families, and the community, as well as for the faculty and staff of Urban Prep-Englewood. The graduates serve as role models for their community and remind us that we must do more to increase America's college attendance if we are to succeed in a 21st-century economy.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I express my support for H. Res. 1414 and congratulate the seniors of the Urban Prep Charter Academy for Young Men for their academic achievement and college acceptance. I want to thank Representative Bobby Rush for bringing this resolution to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to pass the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 1414, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1322) celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship Program and recognizing the significant contributions of Albert Einstein Fellows.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on H. Res. 1322 into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the important role of science, technology, engineering and math--known as STEM--educators in our schools and in our country. The Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship Program recognizes kindergarten through 12th grade teachers as critical voices in the national conversation on education policy. The program acknowledges excellence in teaching and the value of a teacher's service to the community.

This program brings outstanding teachers to the Washington, D.C. area so they can be immersed in and help shape Federal policy. Fellows combine their teaching and their fellowship experience for the betterment of students across the country. This year commemorates the 20th anniversary of the Einstein Fellowship Program.

Over the course of the past 20 years, 173 fellows have served in this important program. This year, there are 24 fellows representing math, science, technology, career and technical education, special education, and engineering teachers. They have come from 47 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico with a diverse range of experience and background.

The Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship provides Congress direct access to teachers who come straight from their classrooms and bring with them a firsthand understanding of how school works. Einstein fellows have also served in most of the Federal agencies, including the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, the National Institutes of Health, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Office of Science and Technology Policy.

In these agencies, fellows are directly involved with educational outreach activities, curriculum development, teacher training, grant proposal review, program analysis and improvement, and other activities where the experience of a STEM educator provides practical insight and vital input.

These teachers serving in our Nation's Capital lend another important voice for the students who will be tomorrow's leaders. These students are

entering a world that requires the concrete skills, creative thinking, and innovation that STEM education provides. Alumni of the program maintain leadership roles in STEM education, which amplifies the value of the fellowship.

Einstein fellows who return to their classrooms and communities bring a wealth of new skills, knowledge, and an enhanced perspective for how their teaching fits into the larger picture of our country's education policy. These teachers renew their efforts to inspire their students and encourage them to pursue STEM pathways. Einstein fellows have also gone on to teach and mentor teachers in university programs, coordinate statewide efforts on STEM curriculum initiatives, and continue serving in the administration and in Congress.

Congressman Honda, who is not here today, wanted me to express his strong support for the Einstein fellowship program, but he is feeling under the weather and can't be here. So I will submit a statement by Congressman Honda in support of the resolution into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, once again I express my support for the 20th anniversary of the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship Program. I want to thank Representative Honda for bringing this resolution to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to pass the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4855) to establish the Work-Life Balance Award for employers that have developed and implemented work-life balance policies, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4855, as amended, into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the passage of H.R. 4855, as amended, the Work-Life Balance Award Act, a bill introduced with Chairman Miller.

I thank Chairman Miller for his hard work in bringing this legislation forward.

I also want to thank my Republican colleagues--Ranking Member Kline and Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who is the ranking member of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee--for their support and for their hard work.

H.R. 4855, as amended, establishes an award at the Department of Labor to be presented annually to employers of any size which have exemplary work-life policies. The bill also sets up an independent board, appointed by the Secretary of Labor, based on recommendations from Congress, to develop the application process and to establish criteria for evaluating the work-life balance policies of applicants. The board is also charged with providing awardee recommendations to the Secretary. The board will consist of representatives from children and families' groups, from State and local governments, from business or business organizations, and from labor.

The Workforce Protections Subcommittee held a hearing on the introduced bill in April. Our witnesses testified that the bill could be improved by establishing broad guidelines for the board to consider in establishing its criteria.

As a result, H.R. 4855, as amended, provides, in determining the criteria, that the board may consider those work-life policies which provide access to employees regardless of wage level, job position, or the number of hours worked; two, which ensure that workers can use the policies without risk of penalty; three, which allow workers to exercise the policy with regard to a broad range of family members. In addition, the board may also evaluate other factors affecting the quality of the workplace, including employee benefits and compliance with labor and health and safety laws.

Finally, the bill requires the Secretary to collect data from the application process. This data is important because it will tell us not only what policies are being offered but also what policies are actually being utilized by workers and employers.

Working Mother Magazine and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Mr. Speaker, also give out awards to companies with outstanding work-life balance policies. They are great programs, and this award is not intended to supplant these or other awards but to

complement ongoing efforts. Creating an award at the U.S. Department of Labor is important for a number of reasons.

Outside of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides unpaid leave for qualifying employees, there is no national policy to support work-life balance. This award will send a strong message that the Federal Government supports and encourages work-life balance.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, many years ago, when my children were not parents themselves, I was working full time outside of the home, with four children. It was a struggle to meet both the needs of my family as well as the responsibilities of my job. And as the human resources manager of a startup electronics company about 30 years ago, I was aware that many of my employees were going through the very same struggles that I was. Unfortunately, some 30 years later, nearly every single parent is under these pressures--men as well as women. And they are desperate for work-life balance.

One of the main reasons I ran for Congress over 18 years ago was to fight for working families. I was a new Member when we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, and I knew what an important step we were taking, particularly for working women, to provide job-protected family and medical leave for certain workers, even though it was unpaid.

But the benefits provided by FMLA are not sufficient. While more than 100 million leaves have been taken under the Family and Medical Leave Act, nearly two in three workers are not covered by the Act. And even if they are, most can't take advantage of its provisions because they simply cannot afford to take unpaid leave.

Sadly, the United States lags far behind the rest of the world in providing work-life benefits to their employees. It is unacceptable that our country, which is the number one economy in the world, can barely compete with developing nations in this arena. Workers should not have to choose between work and family, and ultimately we in Congress need to do much more.

However, the effort for work-life balance must be waged on all fronts, and currently, many in the business world are leading the way. These companies know that providing work-life benefits increases retention, decreases absenteeism, and increases productivity and loyalty.

The award created by H.R. 4855, as amended, will recognize these employers for their efforts and create an incentive for others. It will also set

standards for best practices and shine a light on the needs of working families.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we will vote for the second step after the Family and Medical Leave Act that this Congress will take to support working Americans, men and women, and help them balance the challenges they meet in doing a good job for their families and a good job for their employer, because it must be possible. And we can help make that happen.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the war in Afghanistan is now 104 months old, passing Vietnam, to make it the longest war in United States history. And as it reaches this dubious milestone, it's hard to imagine things going much worse. The much-hyped military campaign in Kandahar is now way behind schedule, with the Secretary of Defense saying it's more important to get it done right than to get it done quickly.

That kind of plea might have worked 80 months ago, Mr. Speaker, but do they not see the irony or the disconnect in preaching patience about a war that is now the longest the Nation has ever fought? Do they not see that the American people, who have given a thousand or more of their best young people and a quarter of a trillion dollars to this war, are long past the point where they are willing to cut some slack and take a wait-and-see approach?

And if that's not bad enough, it turns out the campaign we thought we had just finished in Marja never really took in the first place. What seemed to be a quick and decisive military triumph turned out to be an illusion. The Taliban hadn't been crushed; they had gone into hiding, laying low for a while, taking part in the opium harvest, and regaining their bearings, so

to speak. Now the Taliban is back, with a campaign of violence and intimidation, planting bombs, attacking marines, and terrorizing the population. As one report in The Washington Post put it, ``They still own the night.''

General McChrystal promised to have a ready-made so-called ``government in a box'' prepared to take over in Marja, but inside that box was a district governor considered hapless by most, who has been outfitted by the marines with a fancily furnished tent, who seems more fond of afternoon naps than in doing the hard work of governing.

And the national government that is supposed to be our partner, the repository of our hopes and confidence, the leader of the regime that is supposed to pick up where U.S. troops leave off in providing stability and security, well, his heart doesn't seem to be in the mission. Just a few weeks after being wined and dined by his American hosts during a state visit, President Karzai is wondering aloud whether the United States and NATO can get the job done.

My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that with each setback and each delay pressure will build to extend the timetable for troop deployment, our troops getting out of Afghanistan. This would be the wrong lesson to learn. What's needed is not more time, but a different policy. Every day that we continue this military campaign will contribute to the chaos in Afghanistan. More time and more troops can only exacerbate the problem. They cannot solve it.

I don't think I can describe the war any better than did New York Times columnist Bob Herbert. He said: ``It's just a mind-numbing, soul- chilling, body-destroying slog, month after month, and year after pointless year.''

Mr. Speaker, it's time to end the slog. It's time to end the longest war in American history. It's past time to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, a week ago Sunday, at approximately 10:06 a.m., after the House had adjourned for recess and Americans were enjoying their holiday weekend, the Nation reached a truly disturbing milestone. At about that moment, according to the National Priorities Project, the combined amount of taxpayer money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan reached a staggering $1 trillion. That's trillion with a ``T,'' Mr. Speaker.

That's a breathtaking amount of money to spend, even on something that works. But that kind of spending on two bloody wars that have taken thousands of American lives, destabilized other parts of the world, and done nothing to achieve national security goals, well, it's positively shameful.

That trillion dollars doesn't even include some bills that haven't yet come due, like future medical costs for returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, a commitment we absolutely must keep. Nor does it include interest our grandchildren will pay on the debt we have racked up to finance these wars.

What I can't help thinking, Mr. Speaker, is the lost opportunity costs that we should be taking into account. What could we be spending that kind of money on if we weren't wasting it on immoral wars?

The National Priorities Project did a few calculations that report what we could do with a trillion dollars. They say we could provide a year's worth of health care to 161 million low-income Americans, or we could pay for 137 million Head Start slots, or we could put 16 million more teachers in our elementary school classrooms.

But a funny thing happens whenever we try to make significant investments in the American people, especially those who find themselves struggling through no fault of their own. Suddenly, many of the same people who want to hand a blank check to the Pentagon become the strictest penny-pinchers. The priorities are completely distorted. We have to fight and scrap for every dime of spending designed to help our own people. But in the name of overseas invasion and conquest, money is no object and no expense is spared.

We don't need to spend a trillion dollars to combat terrorism and protect our people. Instead, we can implement a smart security strategy that rejects warfare for the kind of real power, moral authority, and humanitarian decency that is American. It is America at its very best.

It's time to replace the military surge with a civilian surge, Mr. Speaker. We need aid workers, diplomatic initiatives, civil society programs, teachers, democracy promotion specialists, agricultural experts and much more, which would and will make us safer at a fraction of the cost.

Mr. Speaker, these trillion dollar wars have to end. It's time to move to a smart security strategy. It's time to bring our troops home.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Frances L. White, a community college educator for 32 years who is retiring as the Superintendent/President of the Marin Community College District. Dr. White is a distinguished leader who is herself a community college graduate. She is a dedicated educator committed to the community college mission and to the welfare of students, particularly those in the 112 public community colleges in California.

A former full-time faculty member in the Peralta Community College District, Dr. White earned her Ph.D. in education administration from the University of California at Berkeley. As an administrator she has served in a variety of roles including President of Skyline College in San Bruno, California and Executive Vice Chancellor at City College of San Francisco. She is the recipient of many awards and recognitions, the author of scholarly publications, and has directed numerous workshops on college leadership, mentoring, and institutional effectiveness. In March, the Association of California Community College Administrators awarded her the prestigious 2010 Harry Buttimer Distinguished Administrator Award.

Starting at College of Marin during a period of considerable turmoil, Dr. White is credited with working with the Board of Trustees and the Faculty to successfully stabilize a district plagued by decades of declining enrollments, crumbling classrooms, financial instability, poor community connections, and on the brink of accreditation loss. Capitalizing on her powerful personal qualities, White put a recovery plan in place and implemented a strategic direction that arrested the downward spiral and set the college on a visionary course.

A leader with considerable collaborative skills, Dr. White is a compassionate mentor, both to students and to colleagues. With her dedicated support, the Academic Senate developed and implemented Student Learning Outcomes and Program Review, essential for the institution to reestablish accreditation in good standing and what led the Academic Senate leaders to receive statewide recognition for their outstanding efforts.

Not one to shy from challenges, three weeks after taking the helm at College of Marin, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution to place a countywide facilities bond on the ballot. While most thought it would fail, under Dr. White's guidance and tireless work, the Measure C Bond was successful and received broad community support. The $250 million bond made it possible for the College to undertake long-deferred facilities renovation and modernization creating newly designed and energy efficient, student-centered learning environments on both the Kentfield and Indian Valley campuses, which helped generate a 15% enrollment increase at Kentfield and a 135% enrollment increase at Indian Valley.

In addition to being a very competent administrator, Dr. White understands the importance of raising private funds for the College of Marin, and has been innovative in creating opportunities for friends of the college to support its mission. Launching the highly successful ``President's Circle'' as well as the ``Education Excellence Innovation Fund,'' Dr. White has established an enviable budget reserve of 12 percent. The College has been very fortunate Dr. White came at a critical time and was able to initiate significant change and a notable shift in the institutional culture.

Madam Speaker, Dr. White is a gracious woman of remarkable talent and considerable commitment, and it is therefore appropriate to honor her today and to wish her well in her next endeavor. Congratulations, Fran White--you will be missed.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan as they prepare to celebrate Republic Day on May 28.

Azerbaijan's Republic Day commemorates the day that this nation, located on the shores of the Caspian Sea, south of Russia and north of Iran, declared its independence from the Russian Empire in 1918, as the first Muslim democracy.

The new democracy granted women the right to vote in 1919, a year before the 19th Amendment was passed in the United States granting U.S. women that right.

Their independence was tragically short, as the Soviet Union invaded the tiny nation in 1920--altering Azerbaijan's dream of democracy in the 20th Century. That dream reemerged in 1991 when the brutal Soviet regime finally passed to the dustbin of history, and Azerbaijan declared its independence yet again.

My congratulations to the people of Azerbaijan: congratulations on the anniversary of Republic Day, and for your continued efforts and commitment to build a strong democracy in the critically important region of the South Caucasus.

Madam Speaker, on May 6, 2010, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 302. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 302: ``yes''--Honoring the workers who perished on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, extending condolences to their families, and recognizing the valiant efforts of emergency response workers at the disaster site.

Madam Chair, we've heard these arguments before.

The Secretary of the Army said he was concerned about how the proposed change would affect ``the efficiency . . . of the Army.''

A five-star General warned of ``social experiments'' and worried that with reform in military personnel policy ``. . . we may have difficulty attaining high morale.''

Those are not quotations from 2010 about the right of gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the military. They're from more than 60 years ago, during the debate over racial integration of the armed forces.

Does anyone believe they were right? If so, please speak up.

Is anyone prepared to argue that our military has suffered from the full participation of African-Americans in its ranks?

I hope we all remember this history lesson as we prepare to vote on a repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, an embarrassment unworthy of a great country and a great military.

It is responsible for the discharge of 13,000 honorable Americans, men and women who were told their service is dispensable . . . not because of how they behaved, but because of who they are.

It does violence to cherished American values like equality, inclusion, and tolerance. And it damages our national security too.

Given the military's recruitment challenges at a moment that we're still, unfortunately, fighting two wars . . . it is incomprehensible to me that we would reject any capable person who wishes to serve.

It was particularly galling to watch as hundreds of language specialists who could speak Farsi and Arabic were dismissed just when they were needed most, when our occupation of Iraq began.

The assertion that openly gay service members would undermine unit cohesion is just bunk, Madam Chair.

It is an argument based on fear, not fact. The research suggests that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are comfortable serving side-by- side with fellow soldiers who happen to be gay or lesbian.

To suggest otherwise is to insult our troops, as the author of the amendment Mr. Murphy has pointed out. Because the morale argument assumes our soldiers are so unprofessional--and even unpatriotic--that they would let another soldier's sexual orientation distract them from the mission.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may have put it best when he said, ``I cannot escape being troubled by . . . a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity--theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.''

And now it comes down to our integrity, the integrity of those of us privileged to serve in the people's House.

We must have the integrity to do what's right . . . to support our troops and strengthen our military . . . by repealing the cruel and un- American Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Mr. Speaker, we heard all of the arguments before we had our votes yesterday on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but in the past we heard very similar arguments. The Secretary of the Army said he was concerned about how the proposed change would affect the efficiency of the Army. A 5-star general warned of social experiments and worried that with reform in military personnel policy, we may have difficulty attaining high morale.

Those are not quotations from 2010, Mr. Speaker. Those are not quotations about the right of gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the military. They are from more than 60 years ago during the debate over racial integration of the Armed Forces. Does anyone believe they were right? If so, please speak up.

Is anyone prepared to argue that our military has suffered from the full participation of African Americans in its ranks? Thankfully, a majority in this body remembered this history lesson last night when we made history by voting to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, an embarrassment unworthy of a great country and a great military.

It has been responsible for the discharge of 13,000 honorable Americans, men and women who were told their services were dispensable not because of how they behaved, but because of who they are. It has done violence to cherished American values like equality, inclusion, and tolerance. And it has damaged our national security, too.

Given the military's recruitment challenges at a moment that we're still, unfortunately, fighting two wars, it is incomprehensible to me that we would reject any capable person who wishes to serve. It was particularly galling to watch as hundreds of language specialists who could speak Farsi and Arabic were dismissed just when they were needed the most, when our occupation of Iraq began.

The assertion that openly gay servicemembers would undermine unit cohesion is just bunk, Mr. Speaker. It is an argument based on fear, not fact. The research suggests that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are comfortable serving side by side with fellow soldiers who happen to be gay or lesbian. To suggest otherwise is to insult our troops, as the author of the amendment, Mr. Murphy, has pointed out, because it assumes our soldiers are so unprofessional, and even unpatriotic, that they would let another soldier's sexual orientation distract them from the mission.

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may have said it best when he said, ``I cannot escape being troubled by . . . a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity--theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.''

And last night, Mr. Speaker, it came down to our integrity, the integrity of those of us who have the privilege to serve in the people's House. I can't remember too many prouder moments during my time here, because at least we have the integrity to do what's right-- to support our troops and strengthen our military by repealing the cruel and un-American Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Mr. Speaker, in the year 2005, I joined my colleagues and fellow Californians, Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee, and other strong progressives in forming the Out of Iraq Caucus. That group was critical in galvanizing support for an end to the Iraq war and a return of our troops safely home.

Before we formed the Out of Iraq Caucus, Mr. Speaker, questioning the occupation of Iraq was considered a political death wish, but because we had the courage to speak out and to organize, ours became a firmly mainstream position. Without the work we did and the pressure we applied and the growth of our Out of Iraq Caucus, we would not be poised for redeployment out of Iraq later this year.

It's now time for those of us who oppose the war in Afghanistan--a bloc that's growing every single day--to do the same thing. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to join the new Out of Afghanistan Caucus, formally launched by my friend Mr. Conyers from Michigan.

As Afghanistan becomes more bloody, more expensive, and, frankly, more hopeless, we must rally with the same sense of purpose and fearlessness as we did in 2005 in the debate over Iraq. Every day, it seems, brings more bad news out of Afghanistan. The United States death toll has topped 1,000. According to news reports, for the first time we now have more troops in Afghanistan than we do in Iraq, and the combined costs of both wars is fast approaching $1 trillion--that's trillion with a ``T,'' Mr. Speaker.

The American people are losing patience with this war, and who can blame them? For 8\1/2\ years, they have sent their finest men and women and their hard-earned taxpayer dollars halfway around the world only to find that the Taliban is resurgent, the terrorist threat remains strong, and Afghanistan remains mired in corruption, violence, and poverty. At just the moment when we need to draw down, we are doubling down. We're pouring thousands of troops into Kandahar for an all-eggs- in-one-basket offensive that no one seems confident will succeed.

With all that in mind, how can we, in the House of Representatives, not

speak with a louder and more unified voice against this war? But we in the Out of Afghanistan Caucus are not calling for an abandonment of the country. We just believe that a military occupation, which has had nearly a decade to work, can't achieve the objectives of stability and security for the Afghan people.

What we need is diplomacy. We need humanitarian aid, support for democracy building and civil society programs. What we need are more resources for agriculture, education, and infrastructure. These are the tools of a smart security strategy that can empower the Afghan people in a way that sheds no more blood.

Mr. Speaker, warfare has only led to more warfare, emboldening the very enemy we're trying to defeat. A peaceful civilian surge is actually the only answer.

I ask my colleagues to join me in becoming a part of the Out of Afghanistan Caucus and help bring our troops home.